On 4/19/07, Nishit Dave <stargazer.dave at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/19/07, A G <subscrive at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > <so much>
> >
>>Part II
Of course, both Vista and Linux are distributed under licenses, but there is
a major difference between their terms. Vista EULAs very minutely specify
what you can do with it, while the GNU/Linux licenses, predominantly GPL,
only disallow redistribution of the 'work' or its 'derivatives' under a
different license, thereby ensuring that what has once been 'freed' stays
'Free'. It is a matter of copyright, and not ownership.
Consider it this way: you require a license to drive your car. If you break
traffic rules wantonly, your license can be revoked, and you would no longer
be allowed to drive your car. Software licenses also intend to do the same
thing.
However, in case of a car, it could be driven (if undamaged) by your spouse,
your brother or your driver and unless it were impounded, the RTO cannot
keep it off the road. The RTO also does not have any say in whether you use
your car to go to the office, shopping, hauling bootleg liquor or two-timing
with your flirty colleague.
The same situation applies to OS use. However, Vista specifies that you can
use it for the first two purposes only, and not the other two. Any
'unauthorised' use of the OS can lock it up under the protection system.
Under the GPL, however, you are able to do whatever you want with it, short
of the one restriction - call it driving over footpath residents. And even
then, only your license is revoked, for that specific 'work'. There are
other laws that deal with abuse separately.
Contd. part III